Informational injustice with respect to change and negative workplace emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the hitherto unexplored relationship between employees’ perceptions of informational injustice with respect to change and their negative workplace emotions, as well as how this relationship might be mitigated by structural and relational features of the organizational context. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on quantitative data collected through the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. The hypotheses are tested with ordered probit analysis using random effects. Findings – The findings show that informational injustice enhances the development of negative workplace emotions, yet this effect is attenuated at higher levels of job influence, reward interdependence, trust, and organizational commitment. Research limitations/implications – The findings contribute by identifying several contingencies that attenuate the harmful effect of informational injustice with respect to change on negative workplace emotions. The limitations of the study include the lack of data on change-specific outcomes and the reliance on the same respondents to assess the focal variables. Practical implications – The study suggests that organizations facing the challenge of sharing complete information about internal changes can counter the employee stress that comes with limited information provision by creating appropriate internal environments. Originality/value – The study adds to research on organizational change by providing a better understanding of an unexplored driver of negative workplace emotions (i.e. informational injustice with respect to change) and explicating when such informational injustice is more or less likely to enhance these emotions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".